Obviousness

Based on the provided patent text, which lists "Prior art keywords" and acknowledges the existence of certain general prior art concepts, but does not identify specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers or publications), a detailed obviousness analysis combining specific documents is not possible. Therefore, this analysis will discuss the potential obviousness of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by considering the general state of the art around the priority date of August 10, 2010, as implied by the patent's own background and problem statements.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in 2010, working in the field of computing devices and displays, would have been familiar with:

• The increasing miniaturization of electronic components, leading to more powerful handheld devices.
• The widespread adoption and advancements in touch screen display technology.
• The common form factors of computing devices, including small handheld phones and larger tablet/laptop computers.
• The desire for larger display areas on portable devices without sacrificing portability.
• Basic mechanical engineering principles for creating articulated or folding structures.
• Standard electronic components such as processors, memory, communication systems, and various types of sensors (e.g., proximity, hall-effect, force-sensing).
• Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that adapt to different display sizes or orientations.

The patent itself states that "variations on flexible displays and the implementation of multiple screen displays have been proposed to enable the transformation of a display from a compact state to an expanded state." This establishes that the general concept of reconfigurable displays was known prior to the invention. The patent then identifies specific problems with these existing approaches, such as difficulty in achieving a completely flat compact position with flexible displays due to folding radii, and the need for reconfigurable structures, alignment locking mechanisms, and optimized flexible circuits. These identified needs would have provided a clear motivation for a POSA to seek improvements in existing reconfigurable display technologies.

Obviousness Analysis of Claims 1 and 16 (Device Claims)

Combinations of Known Elements and Motivation:

Claims 1 and 16 generally describe a reconfigurable computing device with a display (segmented or flexible) and structural support, transitioning between compact (phone) and expanded (tablet/laptop) states, with a touch screen front and protective housing back in both states. They also include sensors to indicate the state, and a centralized computing module. Claim 1 additionally specifies magnets for locking.

1. Reconfigurable Display with Structural Support and Form Factors (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: The patent explicitly acknowledges that "variations on flexible displays and the implementation of multiple screen displays have been proposed to enable the transformation of a display from a compact state to an expanded state." Separately, the concept of "structural support" and "segments" was also known, as indicated by the prior art keywords. The general idea of distinct "compact" and "expanded" states corresponding to common form factors (phone, tablet, laptop) would have been familiar to a POSA.
   • Motivation: A POSA would have been motivated to combine these known concepts to address the acknowledged need for "increased size without sacrificing the convenience of a small device." Improving upon existing flexible/multiple display designs, a POSA would recognize that combining the display elements with a structural support is necessary for a robust and functional reconfigurable device. Designing the device to adopt established form factors (phone, tablet) in different states would be an obvious design choice driven by user familiarity and market demand. Ensuring a touch screen on the front and a protective housing on the back in both states is a fundamental requirement for functional, durable, and user-friendly portable electronic devices.

2. Sensors to Indicate Device State (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: Sensors for detecting the mechanical state of a device (e.g., whether a laptop lid is open or closed, or a flip phone is opened) were conventional in 2010. The concept of using sensors to trigger software or hardware responses based on physical configuration was well-established.
   • Motivation: Given a reconfigurable display, a POSA would have been motivated to integrate such known sensors to allow the computing device to dynamically adapt its functionality, display output, and power management based on its physical configuration (compact or expanded). The patent itself highlights the importance of "sensors that indicate to a processor the state of configuration" for facilitating content transition. This is a logical extension of existing sensor technology to a novel device configuration.

3. Magnets for Locking (Claim 1):

   • Known Elements: Magnets were commonly used in 2010 for securing components, providing latches in consumer electronics, such as holding tablet covers closed or laptop screens shut.
   • Motivation: To ensure a stable and secure configuration in both the compact and expanded states, a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate known magnetic locking mechanisms. This would prevent accidental unfolding or collapsing and provide a satisfying user experience, without requiring complex mechanical latches.

4. Centralized Computing Module (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: The concept of centralizing core processing, memory, and communication components within a single, main housing or module was standard practice for portable electronic devices. This minimizes bulk and simplifies design.
   • Motivation: In a reconfigurable device with moving display segments, a POSA would be strongly motivated to house "substantially all processing and memory, and a communications system" within "at least one segment" to reduce the complexity and fragility of distributing these components across flexible or moving parts. This design choice would enhance durability, minimize thickness, and ensure consistent performance regardless of the device's state.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 10 (Method Claim)

Combinations of Known Elements and Motivation:

Claim 10 describes a method for sensing the transition of a reconfigurable device and automatically rescaling content via a GUI from a compact to an expanded state.

1. Sensing Transition and Adapting GUI (Claim 10):
   • Known Elements: As discussed, sensors for detecting device configuration changes were known. GUIs that adapt to changes in screen size or orientation (e.g., rotating a phone from portrait to landscape, connecting an external monitor to a laptop) were also common in 2010.
   • Motivation: Given the existence of reconfigurable displays and the ability to sense their physical state, a POSA would have been clearly motivated to implement a GUI that automatically adjusts content. The patent itself highlights the need for a "graphical user interface that facilitates the transition of content from one state to another" to improve user interaction and allow "rescaling and viewing content on both a small scale display and a large scale display". This is an obvious software solution to enhance usability and maintain optimal content presentation on a dynamically changing display. The concept of "app continuity" or seamless screen transitions, which the current litigation mentions, aligns with this motivation.

In summary, while specific prior art documents are not provided, the patent's own description of the technological landscape and the problems it sought to address suggests that a POSA in 2010 would have been motivated to combine known elements and conventional engineering principles to create reconfigurable devices. This motivation would stem from the clear need to provide larger display areas on portable devices while retaining convenience, and to address the recognized limitations of existing flexible and multi-screen display technologies.